Posted on 06/07/2002 4:07:34 PM PDT by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - New questions and controversy regarding advertisers are swirling around Nickelodeon's children's program that will focus on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
A conservative family group claims Nickelodeon plans to air the show later this month without commercials out of fear of alienating advertisers. The Six Flags amusement park company, one of the cable channel's sponsors, is refuting those claims.
Amid these claims and counter-claims, the company refuses to retract a statement made by one of its own staff, and the conservative family group refuses to retract its own statements, raising the question of whether semantics and spin trump fact.
The Nick News program geared towards kids between the ages of eight and 13 is tentatively scheduled to broadcast the homosexuality program June 18 at 9:00 p.m. EDT.
Nickelodeon's program, which will include lesbian activist Rosie O'Donnell, will ask children if they think homosexuality is morally wrong and whether they believe laws are needed to protect homosexuals from discrimination.
Whether the program will have any sponsors is another kettle of fish.
He Said She Said They Said
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, claimed Friday the Nickelodeon program will be broadcast commercial-free as a way to keep advertisers from having to pull out from sponsorship of the show.
"We have confirmed that family-friendly advertisers are skittish about being associated with a children's show that promotes homosexuality," Lafferty said in a statement Friday. "Six Flags informed me 'they make it a practice of avoiding controversial programming and that they refrain from sponsoring shows with certain content.'"
Lafferty said her source was April Gonzales, an official with the Six Flags marketing office. But Debbie Nauser, vice-president of public relations for Six Flags, said the company is not considering such a move.
"No, we don't plan to pull our advertising from Nickelodeon. It is a news program," Nauser said. "We are not here to pass judgment, and we wouldn't pull our advertising from any of the networks or cable channels that run news that we don't find a liking to, so this isn't any different."
She said the company told TVC it would be interested in finding out more about the program, but never said the Six Flags ads would be pulled from Nickelodeon. "We have called them (TVC) and told them to cease and desist saying that, and not to send the release out any further than they already have," Nauser said.
Numerous phone calls to Nickelodeon officials to determine the cable channel's programming plans were not returned Friday. Similarly, telephone calls to other Nickelodeon sponsors, including Hershey's and Maui Toys, were not returned.
But the TVC is sticking by its position, even though Lafferty said she spoke Friday with Six Flags Marketing Vice President Hank Salemi and was asked for a retraction of the TVC statement, which Lafferty said will not happen.
However, she acknowledged the different statements by Six Flags officials regarding whether the company would change its advertising plans. "I am reporting to you that (Gonzales) told us that, but Hank Salemi called and said that is not their position."
Nickelodeon has come under fire from the TVC, other pro-family groups and parents because they're concerned the children's show will promote homosexuality.
Many parents have also questioned whether sexuality of any kind is an appropriate subject for a TV program that targets eight-year-old kids.
David Bittler, senior communications director for Nickelodeon, told CNSNews.com Wednesday that Nickelodeon stands by its decision to air a show about same-sex parenting and homosexuality.
"The fact of the matter is that kids are not finding out about these things through Nick News," said Bittler. "Nick News realizes through its contacts and through the headlines that these are issues that are around and need to be explained to kids so that kids can have some information and make up their own minds."
Traditional Values Coalition has urged its supporters to sign a petition to voice their disapproval of the program, and more than 112,000 people had signed the petition by Friday afternoon.
E-mail a news tip to Matt Pyeatt.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Not to mention all the Bugs cartoons they have cut from "June Bugs" as not PC and the apologetic spin they put on the "Toon heads" Memorial Day special.
Hey, it is owned by the UN loving Ted the Terrible what do you expect?
a.cricket
And if that is true, it shows just how determined these people and their agenda really are.
"The fact of the matter is that kids are not finding out about these things through Nick News," said Bittler.
Well, they will be on the night of June 18th, if they are allowed to watch.
"Nick News realizes through its contacts and through the headlines that these are issues that are around and need to be explained to kids so that kids can have some information and make up their own minds."
And whose job is that? Not your's, Nick News!
Reality check for this jerk.It is my responcibility and my right as a parent to provide my child with information to guide her moral and mental developement.
I decided years ago to dump cable and limit exposure to TV.My child will still be exposed to this type of blatantly innapropriate material through her contacts in daycare.
It is repugnant activities such as this, that have changed my opinion on homosexuals as a group. For most of my life I believed it was none of my business what two adults did in the privacy of their own bedrooms.Now everywhere I look, I see homosexual "issues" and "agendas" in the media, the schools and the government.I now believe they should all go back into the closet and stay there.
My personal backlash against homosexuals has no religious foundation.I attribute it directly to the success of the "gay rights" advocates who have forced me to think about their "problems" in this society. I have made my decision, and I am unconcerned with being labeled a homophobe.IMNSHO, the "gays" have stepped over the line in the same way that millitant feminism has.They forgot their original goals of basic dignity and fairness,which were largely successfull, and now seek absolute controll and the destruction of the society they claim to want to join.
I still think it's no-one's dern business who consenting adults choose to bed- as long as we really are talking about only adults, and no force, coersion, or deceit is involved.
But this dragging of "gay issues" into everything ( or so it seems to me ) is just going too far. The attempts to prosthelitize, and perhaps "convert" children and teens is way over the line. I wish the more moderate gays would wake up and realize that their own worst enemies are not us on the right, but those militant, push-it-to-the-limit "activists" who are in everyone's face all the time.
NYPeanut probably does too.
Since when is a program on homosexuality news, especially for children? Sure glad the censors can pass judgement. If not, the follow up to this dispictable show would highlight homosexuals in the act so the little tykes can see the joys of being a homosexual.
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)." (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868: Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.
Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.
What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:
This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)
Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral.
It cannot be tolerated period.
Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
We watched Noggin one day for its very good programming, but then an ad for Degrassi came on. This show is all about junior high kids, but plays like a soap opera, complete with talk about sex, drugs, and who is going with who....My kids were shocked by the TEASER for the show and knew it was not a wholesome program for them to watch. Now, we're afraid to watch Noggin for fear the ads for "the N's" programming will be shown..The episode of Degrassi I saw part of a few days later was about one character's father telling her he was gay and admitting that he and his male friend "did it" and that he "fell in love" with him the same way anyone falls in love. Gag! The daughter was angry, not so much because he was gay but because he had kept it a secret. double-gag
The gay movement understands that for their agenda to be accepted, they must control a generation's thoughts and opinions as early as possible...
Corrupting young kids via TV and music is stage I. The NEA and public schools are then handed the baton of indoctrination during Stage II. Upon the completion of Stage III spent in higher "re-education" centers (college), the larva morphs into a useless, whining, leftist adult who is obligated to spew out words and phrases like "tolerance", "empowerment", "Christian far-right", and "homophobe".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.